Memory usage beyond 32Bit limitations of Windows OS

[Paul]

As for the reasons why using a pagefile on ramdisk is stupid, there is no need for me to repeat. Brandon Live explained this perfectly further up the thread.

WRONG!

MSFT doesn't license you to use 4GB in 32Bit Client systems but you can hack it to use more:

The kernel includes a function ZwQueryLicenseValue to check for special values. For memory it is Kernel-WindowsMaxMemAllowedx86 and this is set to 4096 for x86 clients.

there is a crack out there to do it for you. Just search for readyfor4gb. The technically background is explained here, although I can imagine that 99% of the users here don't understand it.

It is possible, but not recommend because it doesn't solve the x86 memory issues completely.

Lets look at this logically as to why 32bit is no good with > 4gb memory.

32bit integers have a range of 4,294,967,295. This can be from 0 to 4,294,967,295 or −2,147,483,648 to +2,147,483,647.

We can't have negative memory, so lets start from 0, this gives us our magic number 4,294,967,295.

We are working with binary and not decimal here, so 1 gb = 1,024 megabytes, 1 megabyte = 1,024 kilobytes and so on.

4,294,967,295 / 1024 = 4194303.9990234375

4194303.9990234375 / 1024 = 4095.99999904632568359375

4095.99999904632568359375 / 1024 = 3.999999999068677425384521484375

What does this prove? A 32bit processor can only address just under 4gb of memory, because of this limit with 32bit ints - MagicAndre1981, you claim this hack allows you to use more, but it's just displaying the amount you have installed. It cannot physically address this extra memory, it's simply impossible. I did read the article, and I disagree with it (I am qualified enough to understand that parp).

I use 8GB of memory, and I know a few other people that do as well. Memory is so cheap nowadays that almost anyone can afford to put a large amount into their computer. Granted it may be of no use to an average home user, as opposed to a power user, but then this guide would neither.

Yeah, I was basing the argument off this apparently being for home users as the OP stated above somewhere :)

Edited July 6, 2009 by Citizen Erased

[Joe User]

As for the reasons why using a pagefile on ramdisk is stupid, there is no need for me to repeat. Brandon Live explained this perfectly further up the thread.

Lets look at this logically as to why 32bit is no good with > 4gb memory.

32bit integers have a range of 4,294,967,295. This can be from 0 to 4,294,967,295 or −2,147,483,648 to +2,147,483,647.

We can't have negative memory, so lets start from 0, this gives us our magic number 4,294,967,295.

We are working with binary and not decimal here, so 1 gb = 1,024 megabytes, 1 megabyte = 1,024 kilobytes and so on.

4,294,967,295 / 1024 = 4194303.9990234375

4194303.9990234375 / 1024 = 4095.99999904632568359375

4095.99999904632568359375 / 1024 = 3.999999999068677425384521484375

What does this prove? A 32bit processor can only address just under 4gb of memory, because of this limit with 23bit ints - MagicAndre1981, you claim this hack allows you to use more, but it's just displaying the amount you have installed. It cannot physically address this extra memory, it's simply impossible. I did read the article, and I disagree with it (I am qualified enough to understand that parp).

Yeah, I was basing the argument off this apparently being for home users as the OP stated above somewhere :)

You should mention that this includes the pagefile. If you have a 4GB of memory and a 20GB pagefile, you're still essentially limited to 4GB of memory.

[JunkMail]

yawn yawn... nothing new here :p It works on my system so you can't make me change my head (but you can try... lol)

Wait a minute: This Chinese page shows a download link to a kernel (patched?) which enabled 128GB RAM? can this be true? http://bbs.wmzhe.com/viewthread.php?tid=71...;extra=page%3D1

Edited July 6, 2009 by JunkMail

[ToneKnee]

yawn yawn... nothing new here :p It works on my system so you can't make me change my head (but you can try... lol)

JunkMail, all you have done is post crap, just cut it out. You have shut out people who have more knowledge than yourself, even a Microsoft employee who knows how Windows works better than most members on this board (and believe me, we have loads).

[kazuyette]

yawn yawn... nothing new here :p It works on my system so you can't make me change my head (but you can try... lol)

How many times do we need to say/write/shout that your solution is HALF ASSED AND USELESS !!!!!

Bonus question : How can you explain that the simple fact of replacing my 32Bits OS with a 64 Bits ( without changing a single piece on my laptop ) one enabled me to unleash the full power of my quad core with its 4GB of RAM ?

Say it with me : " If I have more than 3GB of RAM I MUST use a 64 bits OS and everything else is PLAIN RUBBISH AND USELESS !"

If you're fine with your useless solution, then good for you but don't go on teh Int3webs spreading such UNEDUCATED stuff like you're doing with this thread. Teh Int3rwebs will forever be grateful to you ! :D

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

...

Lets look at this logically as to why 32bit is no good with > 4gb memory.

32bit integers have a range of 4,294,967,295. This can be from 0 to 4,294,967,295 or −2,147,483,648 to +2,147,483,647.

We can't have negative memory, so lets start from 0, this gives us our magic number 4,294,967,295.

We are working with binary and not decimal here, so 1 gb = 1,024 megabytes, 1 megabyte = 1,024 kilobytes and so on.

4,294,967,295 / 1024 = 4194303.9990234375

4194303.9990234375 / 1024 = 4095.99999904632568359375

4095.99999904632568359375 / 1024 = 3.999999999068677425384521484375

What does this prove? A 32bit processor can only address just under 4gb of memory, because of this limit with 32bit ints - MagicAndre1981, you claim this hack allows you to use more, but it's just displaying the amount you have installed. It cannot physically address this extra memory, it's simply impossible. I did read the article, and I disagree with it (I am qualified enough to understand that parp).

...

To be fair, you can flip the CPU's into 36bit addressing mode, which gives you access to 64GB of RAM.

Of course, relying on PAE mode on a 64bit chip running in 32Bit mode running an OS that's available in 32bit and 64bit versions is pretty stupid, unless you've got some valid reason (irreplaceable hardware that's for some reason only has 32bit drivers for Vista)

[JunkMail]

Like I said, this thread was for those running 32Bit (its quite obvious that if you're running 64Bit there are no problems).

kazuyette, You don't like it fine, don't do anything (go ahead with 64 and am I stopping you?). The point is simple here, you can use more then 4GB with this... (now you can go on denying but on my system, i know for fact it works :) )

Nothing you say can alter my head and when Win7 comes (as neowin says RTM is 13th?) then thats where things will change.

[notuptome2004]

Like I said, this thread was for those running 32Bit (its quite obvious that if you're running 64Bit there are no problems).

kazuyette, You don't like it fine, don't do anything (go ahead with 64 and am I stopping you?). The point is simple here, you can use more then 4GB with this... (now you can go on denying but on my system, i know for fact it works :) )

Nothing you say can alter my head and when Win7 comes (as neowin says RTM is 13th?) then thats where things will change.

Like we have said Knowbody Cares for your stupid method of making a 32bit OS run more then 4gb of ram or more then it is allowed and the ones whoi may Care will look at your HD tune score and go WTF CPU usage 70% sorry all just run 64bit

and as other have stated windows 7 is being released in both versions and each of them you own when ya buy so it is FREE 2 fore the price of 1 TY now junk why not just go out run windows 7 X64 and then come back and apologize e when you released how stupid you was thinking the Ramdisk thing was the best thing since The Fat lady died choking on a Crumb of Bread.

your the only 1 besides that 1 other dude DDstriker who things this is a good idea and well the rest of us on Neowin are against it as most of use on neowin run 64bit version of windows of some kind or Linux 64bit variant for some of the Linux crowd on neowin oh and wont forget the Mac crowd

[JunkMail]

CAN ANYONE Confirm whether THIS PATCH for VISTAx86 and Windows7x86 WORKS???

This patch also states that you must have PAE enabled system (I've added this link to first post for the purpose of review by any new comers)

If I'm understanding this Chinese page right, It has patched kernel which makes x86 (Post 6000 NTs) to access memory upto 128GB (which is cool)

whatever good comes out of this thread is worth it

just for a while, forget ANTI-discussions here...

[ToneKnee]

CAN ANYONE Confirm whether THIS PATCH for VISTAx86 and Windows7x86 WORKS???

This patch also states that you must have PAE enabled system (I've added this link to first post for the purpose of review by any new comers)

If I'm understanding this Chinese page right, It has patched kernel which makes x86 (Post 6000 NTs) to access memory upto 128GB (which is cool)

whatever good comes out of this thread is worth it

just for a while, forget ANTI-discussions here...

You shouldn't even be touching the kernel.

And no, this isn't "Anti-discussion" this is "Anti-stupidity".

[kazuyette]

...

whatever good comes out of this thread is worth it

just for a while, forget ANTI-discussions here...

NO, nothing good will come out of your stupid idea ... Well I only see one thing : some random users, because of people like you posting ridiculous and useless ideas on the internet, will believe that MS is lying to them.

NOTHING GOOD WILL COME OUT OF THIS THREAD. Why won't you get it ? I'm still puzzled ...

P.S. : How can you have trust in a dodgy patch made by a chinese John Doe instead of admitting that your solution is USELESS ? You're so stubborn.

[Unimatrix Xero]

yawn .............if you want to use more memory then switch to x64 simple

[JunkMail]

ok that makes me sleepy again :o but still, my signature won't die for that matter, hehehe

[ToneKnee]

ok that makes me sleepy again :o but still, my signature won't die for that matter, hehehe

Don't you feel that you are being a little immature? Rather than listening and embracing what is being told to you, you are ignoring us and telling people to ignore us, and like kazuyette said, you are being stubborn. I have nothing against you, just have a problem with the way you want to get around things. You want people to patch their kernels and take a chance on a half arsed idea rather than take a much simpler route by going with x64.

[JunkMail]

Do i care what you think about me? you're a fool! hahaha

I'm not forcing people am i? BUT YOU ARE! USE THE DAMN x64! You're out of your mind, those people who want to use x64 will do it without your assistance and those who want to continue with x86 will also do it without YOU!

I tell anyone to ignore ?heads who force people....

Edited July 6, 2009 by JunkMail

[Joe User]

CAN ANYONE Confirm whether THIS PATCH for VISTAx86 and Windows7x86 WORKS???

This patch also states that you must have PAE enabled system (I've added this link to first post for the purpose of review by any new comers)

If I'm understanding this Chinese page right, It has patched kernel which makes x86 (Post 6000 NTs) to access memory upto 128GB (which is cool)

whatever good comes out of this thread is worth it

just for a while, forget ANTI-discussions here...

I don't recommend using a hacked kernel, you have no idea what they put into that thing.

Also, isn't it against the rules here to distribute modified system files?

[JunkMail]

I didn't come up with that link even if its against (someone else pointed out to that link first) and since no one stopped that dude (thought it was fair enough since it has some meaning to it with this thread's topic)

Will you stop ****ing lying? How do you know it doesn't work if you haven't tried it? It's certainly technically possible. Why don't you stay out of the thread if you don't understand the subject, instead of derailing the thread with your moronic crap and being rude to someone who was just offering a neat tip? Did a 32-bit OS rape your wife, and this is your revenge?

loooool, i couldn't stop for a while... hehe (had to read it again)

Look whats below this post, a dude feels pity for his insanity (so predictable)

[ToneKnee]

Do i care what you think about me? you're a fool! hahaha

I'm not forcing people am i? BUT YOU ARE! USE THE DAMN x64! You're out of your mind, those people who want to use x64 will do it without your assistance and those who want to continue with x86 will also do it without YOU!

I tell anyone to ignore ?heads who force people....

I pity the fool.

[JunkMail]

wait, that just turned out RIGHT? lol (read my last post)

[XerXis]

this thread really is beyond saving now, it should be closed before the fighting gets even worse

[MagicAndre1981]

What does this prove? A 32bit processor can only address just under 4gb of memory, because of this limit with 32bit ints - MagicAndre1981,

that's why PAE was developed

but it's just displaying the amount you have installed. It cannot physically address this extra memory, it's simply impossible.

Wrong.

I did read the article, and I disagree with it (I am qualified enough to understand that parp).

then read it again and try it your own ;)

[DrCheese]

that's why PAE was developed

Which isn't supported above 4gb in XP or the standard versions of 2003 anyway. If your running 2003 Enterprise as your primary operating system then you have bigger issues than worrying about 32bit address limits.

[MagicAndre1981]

Which isn't supported above 4gb in XP or the standard versions of 2003 anyway.

And why? Yes, because MSFT doesn't want you to use it. This is just a licensing issue, nothing technically.

[Subject Delta]

PAE was designed for use in server environments, it was never intended for use on desktop OSes. The fact that 32 bit drivers for most consumer hardware aren't compatible with the extra page extension size needed to address the extra memory means that there is a possibility of irrational OS behaviour. These things are disabled for a reason, and threads like this just ramp up the misinformation

[MagicAndre1981]

that's what MSFT, especially Mark posted several times.

Read the link carefully and try to understand it.